Russia and China are threatening SpaceX's Starlink satellite constellation, new report finds
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
SpaceX's Starlink satellite constellation is facing threats from Russia and China because it was tapped for military use in Ukraine following Russia's invasion of the nation in 2022, according to a new report evaluating the counterspace capabilities of a dozen countries over the past year.
The report, published on Thursday (April 3) by the nonpartisan policy think tank Secure World Foundation (SWF), highlights how humanity's growing reliance on space — especially for national security — has led an increasing number of countries to develop their own counterspace capabilities. The 316-page document assesses the counterspace capabilities of 12 countries including the U.S., Russia, China, India, Australia as well as North Korea and South Korea, based on publicly available information spanning February 2024 through February of this year.
"We feel strongly that a more open and public debate on these issues is urgently needed," the report's foreword states. "Our global society and economy are increasingly dependent on space capabilities, and a future conflict in space could have massive, long-term negative repercussions that are felt here on Earth, as everyone on this planet is a user of space data in some form."
SpaceX's Starlink uses a massive network of satellites in low Earth orbit to provide high-speed broadband internet. Ukrainian residents began using Starlink in 2022 to maintain internet connectivity after Ukraine's own internet services were disrupted following Russia's invasion. The service also enabled secure communications for the Ukrainian military and government. Starting in May 2024, however, the Ukrainian military began experiencing outages in Starlink connections, with military officials attributing the disruptions to Russia "testing different mechanisms" for its electronic warfare systems seemingly employing new and more advanced technology.
The SWF report cites leaked U.S. military documents that suggest a Russian system called Tobol — that was originally designed to protect Russian satellites from jamming — was used to disrupt Starlink commercial satellite signals over Ukrainian territory. Those leaked documents "suggest that Russia has used at least three Tobol installations to try and disrupt Starlink commercial satellite signals over Eastern Ukraine," the report notes.
Russia appears to also be developing a newer, more sophisticated system called Kalinka, which is intended to detect and disrupt signals to and from Starlink satellites in order to interfere with Ukrainian drones and military communications, according to the SWF report. Andrei Bezrukov, the director of the Russian Center for Unmanned Systems and Technologies, which is developing the Kalinka system, told state media that the so-called "Starlink killer" could also detect communication terminals connected to Starshield, the military version of Starlink that's designed with enhanced security features.
Additional reports revealed that Russia had jammed GPS signals in four European countries: France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Luxembourg. There have also been reports that Russia interrupted children's TV channels in these countries to broadcast images of the war in Ukraine. The International Telecommunication Union's Radio Regulations Board has said the interference likely originated from stations in Moscow, Kaliningrad and Pavlovka.
"As of February 2025, the Starlink service appears to have been remarkably resistant to further cyber attacks," the report notes.
According to the SWF report, China is investing in similar capabilities for potential future armed conflicts with the U.S.
In July of last year, researchers from the People's Liberation Army Navy proposed laser-equipped submarines with retractable masts that could surface to target Starlink satellites or other space-based surveillance systems, although the researchers acknowledged that the submarines' limited detection capabilities would require external forces to provide satellite position guidance for accurate targeting.
Related Stories:
— US Space Force picks Rocket Lab and Stoke Space to compete for national security launches
— Secretive Russian military satellites release mystery object into orbit
— Chinese astronauts install debris shields on Tiangong space station during 8.5-hour spacewalk (video)
Meanwhile, the U.S. Space Force is testing new satellite jammers called the Remote Modular Terminals, intended to operate remotely and provide counterspace electronic warfare capability, the report notes.
"Everyone is jamming," Victoria Samson, the director of Secure World's Washington office and one of the report's primary authors, told Breaking Defense earlier this week.
So far, only non-destructive counterspace capabilities are being actively used against satellites in current military operations, the report notes.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The P&Q Interview: Kingston's Human-Centered, Future-Skills Approach To Business
Sankar Sivarajah, head of Kingston University Business School in London, wants the school to be known as a human-centric institution grounded in future skills. Courtesy photo When Sankar Sivarajah became the new head of in London, he was given an opportunity not afforded to many incoming deans: to redefine what a business education should be. Since September, Sivarajah has been working with senior leadership to create a new identity for Kingston Business that both builds upon its entrepreneurial foundation and prepares its graduates for the future of work. 'We want to create graduates and business leaders who are enterprising, not only in the entrepreneurial startup sense, but in being resourceful, adaptive, and able to think creatively in a world where resources are limited,' says Sivarajah, professor of Technology Management and Circular Economy. 'We want them to be future-focused and open-minded, people who can navigate complexity and misinformation and still move society forward. Simply put, I want Kingston Business School to be known as a human-centric institution grounded in future skills.' Sivarajah came to Kingston from the University of Bradford where he was dean of the School of Management for five years. There, he led the expansion of online programs, championed socially responsible business education, and led the launch of the UK's first MSc in AI in a business school, as opposed to a computer science department. The program also secured £1 million in scholarships for underrepresented students in AI. Kingston University is located about 30 minutes from central London and enrolls about 20,000 students per year (over 2,500 are business students). Its flagship business programs include a residential MBA, and several specialized masters. It is developing a program in AI for Business, focusing on ethical and human-centric applications. Its undergraduate business degree is built around Kingston University's 'Future Skills' framework that includes adaptability, critical thinking, and collaboration. 'Our edge comes from how we embed human-centric, life-ready skills in a structured way,' Sivarajah says. 'It's not just for a select few students who are highly engaged or have the time for extracurriculars. Every single student who comes into our programs, regardless of background, has an opportunity to hone those essential skills.' Poets&Quants recently connected with Sivarajah to talk about how Kingston is rethinking what business education means. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity. My academic journey began at Brunel University London, where I also did all my undergraduate studies. I actually describe myself as an accidental academic. I come from a family business background in Sri Lanka, and I originally came to the UK to pursue higher education with the goal of returning home to help grow the family business. I went on to do a master's in management, specializing in entrepreneurship, at Bayes Business School, City University London. At that point, I had shipped all my things home and was set to go back to Sri Lanka, but then, I was to apply for fully funded PhD scholarship by the Dean of the Business School at Brunel. That PhD was a turning point. My supervisors were heavily involved in European Commission-funded research projects, and that opened up a whole new world to me. My research was focused on technology evaluation and smart cities. I had always assumed I'd either go into business or maybe do consulting, but these R&D projects offered a unique opportunity: you weren't handed a fixed brief; You could create and pitch your own ideas. That freedom was new to me, and I really valued it. Around 2017, I joined the University of Bradford and asked to set up a new, forward-looking department focused on business analytics. At the time, the UK was still playing catch-up in this area, but it gave me my first experience running a department. I developed new programs, built a team, and helped shape the culture. By 2019, I was asked to step up as dean. I spent five years there, commuting from London, and was really proud of the transformation we led. We focused on rebuilding the school's identity and launched the UK's first MSc in AI in a business school setting. Most AI programs were housed in computer science departments, but we believed that AI and analytics were just as critical for future managers and business leaders. By 2025, I was still tenured at Bradford and they wanted me to extend my stay. But I knew I wanted to take on a new challenge. That's when Kingston came knocking. I didn't know much about it initially, but it had a similar story: strong in the '80s, but momentum had faded. I did some research and saw real potential. Their distinctive institutional strategy, entrepreneurship focus and values resonated with me. I felt like I could genuinely add value and help shape an identity that was authentic to Kingston but also forward-thinking. Some parts of the curriculum needed modernization, but the foundation was there. I officially started in September 2024, so it's been about eight months. Now, I'm working closely with the senior leadership on defining a new identity for the business school. They've given me the freedom to redefine and restructure, which is exciting. Of course, in the UK, you have to align with the parent university. We don't have the same autonomy as independent business schools, but I see that as part of the challenge. The big thing is something they call the . For context, Kingston is located in southwest London. It was previously a polytechnic, so very skills based. Like many post-1992 universities, it retained that emphasis on practical, career-focused learning. That's been its DNA for over 150 years. The Town House Strategy, launched by the current Vice Chancellor, is built on several key pillars. One of the boldest and most unique is what they call the 'Future Skills' approach. Everyone talks about future skills, but Kingston actually developed a methodology behind it. In 2021, the university launched its own large-scale research project in partnership with YouGov. They surveyed 2,000 businesses, 2,000 members of the public, and 1,000 current students – 5,000 stakeholders in total – to identify which skills are most valued by society and industry. The outcome was a framework of nine core life skills, ranging from curiosity to critical thinking and adaptability. What's impressive is how they've embedded these skills across every single undergraduate program as part of the curriculum. Kingston Business School is located about 30 minutes from central London and enrolls about 2,500 business students a year. Courtesy photo Some of the skills that I think really resonate right now are things like creative problem-solving, digital competencies, a questioning mindset, and things like resilience and self-awareness. Those are all part of the nine core skills we identified through our research. Kingston's approach is a structured, three phase model for each year of the undergrad experience. In the first year, called the Navigate phase, students reflect on those nine skills and where their strengths and gaps are. It might turn out a student is already strong in critical thinking, but needs to build more confidence in collaboration. That becomes a foundation for their development throughout the rest of the program. The second year is Explore, where they work on projects beyond their own discipline. For example, this year, over 800 students from business, arts, engineering all worked together on interdisciplinary teams to respond to a real business brief. It's a bit like a hackathon, but assessed as part of the curriculum. It's not optional; it's built in. The third year is Apply, where students complete real-world experiences like micro-placements, live projects, or case challenges. We also work with a group called Gradcore to run simulated assessment centers, just like what students would go through in real job application processes here in the UK. It's structured to get them ready for employability, but also ties back to the future skills framework they've been building on since year one. This model has gained traction at the policy level: Our local MP recently brought a motion to Parliament advocating for the Future Skills model to be adopted more broadly across the UK higher education sector. So yes, many universities talk about skills and employability, but I haven't seen this level of strategic implementation before. Structuring the student experience around Navigate, Explore, Apply, that's something tangible. It gives students a clear developmental journey and gives us a language to talk about how our programs are different. In terms of purpose, we want to be a human-centered business school that delivers future skills and truly walks the talk for a progressive society. We aim to shape businesses through people and knowledge. This human-centered approach runs through everything. Our curriculum already integrates future skills, and now we want to align our research around that same ethos. For example, in our future-of-work research cluster, we're looking at behavioral insights and how employers and employees interact. Even in traditionally technical areas like economics, we're asking: can we explore the behavioral side? In marketing, how do consumer behaviors reflect deeper societal trends? The question we keep asking is: where does the human add value? That's the identity I'd like us to build: A business school that doesn't just equip students with technical knowledge but also prepares them to think critically and act responsibly. One that I think has huge potential is our , Behavioural Research Analytics in Neurotechnological Systems. While many universities have similar labs, they're often used primarily from a psychology perspective. What's great here is that we're integrating it into business-focused research and teaching. The lab is equipped with tools like eye-tracking and monitoring equipment to study human decision-making. For instance, you can run simulations like a financial market crash scenario and study how people make decisions under stress. You can analyze sentiment, track attention, and evaluate reactions in real time. There's also a team collaboration room that allows you to observe and study how people interact and work together in group settings. So whether it's for marketing research, financial behavior, or workplace team dynamics, it offers a wide range of business-relevant use cases. I really see this as one of Kingston's best-kept secrets, a resource we need to spotlight and scale up. Our current MBA program is undergoing a complete overhaul, and that's one of the key places where the human-centric philosophy is really taking shape. The MBA is an important offering for us both for talent development and for those already in business who want to upskill. Kingston had strong recognition for its MBA in the past, but it's a very crowded market now. So we asked ourselves: how can Kingston's MBA stand out? Sankar Sivarajah: 'We want graduates to be future-focused and open-minded, people who can navigate complexity and misinformation and still move society forward' We've centered the redesign around three key themes: digital intelligence, human value, and sustainability. One of the new features we're excited about is a leadership component called the 'MBA X.' It's designed to help students build confidence and presence. We leverage Kingston's strength in the arts and use creative spaces like a media studio where students can record podcasts, deliver presentations, and really learn to project themselves with authenticity. It's about helping them bring their unique 'X factor' into leadership. We're also embedding leadership development and coaching throughout the program in our 'The Kingston Impact: Leadership and Personal Growth' module. Currently, the MBA is offered full-time on campus, but we've just had the business case approved for launching an online version potentially in September 2026. Through my experience running an FT-ranked online MBA at Bradford, I know how saturated that space is. But I think there's a real opportunity for Kingston to stand out by leaning into our human-centric approach. Our MSc in International Business remains a flagship, as it does in many institutions. But we're also launching new programs in areas like Digital Marketing and Business Analytics. We are working on developing a new program in AI for Business with a clear emphasis on the human good and responsible application, which will set it apart. One final standout is our MSc in Occupational and Business Psychology. It's accredited by the British Psychological Society (BPS), and it bridges social science and business in a meaningful way. That's quite rare in UK business schools, and it naturally supports the human-centered identity we're building. Our current mix is about 70% regional, 30% international. In the current climate where UK higher education is facing challenges with international student numbers, we're in a stronger position than many other institutions. That said, our postgraduate programs are where we see most of our international enrollment. We have a strong contingent from South Asia, and we also receive European students through our partnership with BI Norwegian Business School. Our MBA in particular has seen a big uptick in international interest. In the current MBA cohort, out of 35 students, 70% were from South Asia. But here's the surprising part: the second-largest group was from the United States. When I asked them why they chose Kingston, many mentioned wanting the UK and London experience. But they also did their research. A lot of the decision came down to word-of-mouth recommendations, which was encouraging to hear. So while we continue to serve a strong regional student base, especially at the undergraduate level, we're definitely building momentum internationally, particularly in our postgraduate and MBA offerings. At the institutional level, Kingston has a broader strategy for embedding AI across teaching and assessment. But within the business school specifically, we've developed a structured approach to how AI is integrated both in terms of policy and practice. We're using a three-level framework to guide how AI can be used in assessments: Level 1, AI not allowed. For example, live presentations where students must demonstrate their own thinking. Level 2, AI-assisted work is allowed. Students might use ChatGPT or Grammarly but must disclose it. Level 3, AI use is required. Students may have to build models or chatbots as part of the brief. This tiered model helps us stay consistent and intentional. It gives faculty the tools to design assignments that either exclude, allow, or mandate AI use, depending on the learning objectives. And because it's embedded into modules across subjects, we're able to build students' digital fluency in a clear and structured way. So it's not just about offering one AI course or launching a degree; We're taking a much broader, integrated approach that aligns with our human-centered philosophy. We're asking: how can AI augment learning while still developing the critical thinking, creativity, and ethical awareness that make human contributions valuable? On top of that, we're also developing a new program specifically designed to build AI skills for non-technical learners, particularly for future business leaders. It's still in the design phase, but the idea is to help students and professionals who don't have a technical background understand how to engage with AI in a responsible, ethical, and strategic way. I think one of the biggest is staying relevant in such an uncertain and fast-changing environment. The more I reflect on it, and the more I attend conferences and conversations across the business school space, the more it becomes clear that we need to constantly redefine what our value add is. Today's learners, especially Gen Z and the upcoming Gen Alpha, are different. They've been exposed to vast amounts of information, screen time, and digital tools from an early age. So, when they come into the classroom, it's not enough to just deliver knowledge. They've already encountered much of it, or at least the surface of it, online. So we have to ask ourselves: What is the real value of coming to a business school? For me, it's about depth. It's about knowledge creation, critical thinking, intellectual debate, and the human touch – the philosophical and behavioral side of business. That's where our strength lies: in helping students question, evaluate, and apply knowledge with purpose. Especially with the rise of AI, we need to ensure that students still understand the fundamentals. You need the depth to be able to assess whether AI is giving you the right answer. You can't do that without understanding the foundation behind it. But we also have to keep pace with how businesses are operating right now. That's the real tension: staying academically rigorous while also remaining industry-relevant. Businesses are using tools and technologies at a pace that's hard to match in education, and we have to make sure our teaching and our programs reflect that. For example, in one of our Future Skills surveys, we asked businesses whether they thought graduates were fit for roles involving AI. Fewer than 30% said yes. That's a clear signal. One thing that stands out to me is the increasing role of geopolitics and how that intersects with business education. More and more, we're having to think about how political and cultural shifts affect not only what we teach but how we build partnerships and engage with students. Things like equity, diversity, inclusion, all of those are critically important. But they can also become very personal, very emotive topics. So I think a key challenge for business education, and for Kingston specifically, is how we help students navigate that complexity. How do we equip them to operate in global business environments where diplomacy, relationship-building, and cross-cultural understanding are essential? How do you hold onto your values while still learning how to engage constructively in partnerships, even with people or entities you might disagree with? That's something we need to continue reflecting on as educators: how to keep students ready for the world as it is, not just the world as we wish it would be. One more thing I think is really important is the role of place. Business schools shouldn't operate in a bubble, and one thing I learned from my previous role was how deeply a school can engage with its local community. At Bradford, for example, it's a city with high levels of deprivation, very different from London. We did programs to support social mobility, rehabilitation projects for prisoners, support for Ukrainian refugees, and training initiatives for people who had never had access to higher education. We worked with local government and played a role in the city's cultural and economic development. Now at Kingston, the context is different, but the responsibility is the same. Kingston is known as a safe and prosperous borough in London. We have Richmond Park and Wimbledon Common right next to us. But even here, we have students who come from less privileged backgrounds. Just because it's a wealthy area doesn't mean every student has had the same opportunities. We're already working with large organizations – Unilever's headquarters is here, for example – but the question is, how do we make sure all of our students, regardless of background, have access to those opportunities? We're partnering with the local council, the Kingston Chamber of Commerce, running Future of Work summits, mock assessments, and leadership events—not as optional extras, but as built-in parts of the student experience. We want our students to be the first choice, not the insurance choice. That means developing their skills, yes, but also giving them high-value experiences and networks. And by doing that, we also give back to our community. That's how I think business schools should operate: Not just as institutions of learning, but as civic partners helping shape the places they're in. DON'T MISS: LONDON BUSINESS SCHOOL DEAN SERGEI GURIEV AND IVEY DEAN JULIAN BIRKINSHAW HAS GLOBAL AMBITIONS FOR ELITE CANADIAN B-SCHOOL The post The P&Q Interview: Kingston's Human-Centered, Future-Skills Approach To Business appeared first on Poets&Quants. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Axiom Space prepares for its fourth mission to the ISS
Axiom Space plans to launch its fourth mission on Tuesday, June 10 — a mission that CEO Tejpaul Bhatia described as 'a little bit of a victory lap.' In addition to being the private space company's fourth mission to the International Space Station, Bhatia said Ax-4 will be Axiom Space's second 'fully national mission' where all the customers are national governments. In fact, the company has also dubbed this mission as one that will 'realize the return' to human spaceflight for India, Poland, and Hungary, who will each have an astronaut on the flight. In addition, Bhatia said this will be the company's first 'break even mission' after losing money on the first three. He emphasized that these ISS missions are 'not our business model' — the company plans to add commercial modules to the ISS that eventually detach and become the free-flying Axiom Station. At the same time, Bhatia said these initial missions bring in revenue and help illustrate the demand for commercial space flight. Plus, they create inspirational 'Apollo moments' for each of the client countries. 'It shows how space is opening up because of commercial companies,' he said. 'For all three countries, this will be their second astronaut ever. And it shows the switch from Space Race 1.0 to Space Race 2.0.' Thus far, Axiom Space's missions have used SpaceX Dragon spacecraft to bring astronauts to the ISS. The company's role, Bhatia said, is to serve as a 'marketplace integrator and broker' that can pull these missions together. As the commercial space industry expands, he predicted that there will be enormous opportunities in continuing to serve as the 'managed marketplace' for space, because 'no one can do this alone.' 'To become multi-planetary, that's not something where one country has all the capabilities,' he added. The prospects for commercial space travel have looked less certain in the past few days, after acrimony between President Donald Trump and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk led Trump to declare he was canceling government contracts with Musk's companies and Musk to respond that he was decommissioning the Dragon spacecraft. (He later seemed to back down.) Axiom Space declined to comment on how the Trump-Musk feud might affect the industry, but when Bhatia and I spoke in late May, I asked him a related question about the political landscape — namely, whether potential budget cuts at NASA and more broadly across scientific research threatened the optimistic vision that he was presenting. 'It's not that government investment will open space, ' Bhatia said. 'They've already done it. [Now] it's the entrepreneurs who will use the commercial platforms to build the bridge to the next stage.' The CEO is actually relatively new to his current role. When we spoke, Bhatia told me it was only his fourth week on the job after replacing the company's co-founder Dr. Kam Ghaffarian as chief executive. (Ghaffarian continues to serve as the company's executive chairman.) But Bhatia — who was previously an executive at Google Cloud — had already spent four years as the company's chief revenue officer. While his career wasn't particularly space-focused before joining Axiom Space, he said that since he was younger, 'when I was daydreaming, it was always about space.' And like any good space company CEO, Bhatia has hopes of eventually traveling to the final frontier himself. 'I would love to go,' he told me. 'I have no doubt that we will all go.'
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Why Elon Musk's Attack On Trump Might Be A Genius Move
Is Musk the next Kingmaker? To many watching, Elon Musk's decision to publicly insult President Trump seemed self-destructive, if not outright irrational. After all, Trump is not merely a political contender; he is the sitting President of the United States. And his administration holds the keys to massive government contracts awarded to Musk's companies, including Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink, and The Boring Company. From electric vehicle subsidies to multi-billion-dollar defense and aerospace deals, Musk's empire is deeply intertwined with Washington policy. So why provoke the President? Why risk alienating the one person who could shut off the federal faucet? At first glance, Musk's recent behavior—mocking Trump's persona and publicly undermining his hallmark tax bill—seems reckless. But what if it is not? While some of this may sound far-fetched, it is not without basis—and not without bias. With significant financial exposure to both Tesla and SpaceX, there is naturally a tendency among investors and observers alike to view Musk's actions as part of a broader strategic play rather than a misstep. It is a theory shaped by both market history and hope. And given Musk's repeated success turning volatility into advantage, it remains a plausible—if highly speculative—possibility. What if the world's richest man is executing a deliberate and calculated power move—not for short-term gain, but for long-term positioning? Consider the numbers. In late 2024 and early 2025, Musk reportedly spent over $300 million supporting Trump's return to the White House—through media platforms, political donations, and influence networks. That support may have helped secure Trump's narrow path to reelection. Within months of Trump's victory, Musk's net worth surged by over $150 billion—a staggering 500x return on his political 'investment.' Arguably, it was the fastest rise in personal net worth in recorded human history. That type of asymmetric gain does not happen by accident. It happens by design. And Musk is still only 53 years old—a young man by political standards. He has decades ahead of him, along with a seemingly endless stream of ideas, energy, and capital. He may not be eligible to run for President himself (as a naturalized citizen), but he is more than capable of shaping who does—and what ideas dominate the political conversation. Importantly, Musk now controls X (formerly Twitter), one of the most powerful social media platforms in the world. With it, he can shape narratives, amplify allies, and control the flow of political discourse at a scale no traditional media outlet can match. He also has virtually unlimited capital at his disposal—far beyond the reach of any political action committee or super PAC. In effect, Elon Musk could become the most influential political kingmaker of our era. And let us not forget: many have underestimated Musk before—and paid dearly. Short-sellers have repeatedly tried to bet against him, only to be humiliated. Tesla has suffered steep declines, but time and again, the stock has rebounded with explosive force, wiping out billions in short positions. Betting against Musk has become a high-risk proposition, bordering on financial self-destruction. He thrives in volatility. He welcomes chaos. And he has mastered the art of turning doubt into dominance. During his brief but highly publicized 'Spring Internship' in the White House, Musk likely absorbed far more than just headlines. He got a firsthand view of how political messaging is crafted, how power is distributed, and how influence is accumulated—not just through policy, but through provocation, platform control, and personal brand. And perhaps this is not personal—it is transactional. Musk left the White House with what many interpreted as a symbolic 'golden key': access, influence, and alignment. Yet, within days of departing, he turned sharply critical. This timing suggests not a spontaneous outburst, but a calculated pivot. Some speculate that Trump's decision to reject Musk's preferred candidate for NASA Administrator may have played a role. Others point to the fact that Tesla—despite leading the EV revolution—was excluded from new vehicle credits in Trump's proposed tax package. The omission could cost Tesla billions. Was Musk's shift ideological? Possibly. But more likely, it was about money and control. And Trump likely understands that. To be clear, President Trump is doing nothing wrong in this exchange. In fact, he has remained composed, focused on his policy agenda, and largely above the fray. He appears presidential. And perhaps he recognizes what others may not: the proverbial sandbox is plenty big for both of them. There is room in American politics for powerful forces to compete—and coexist. Critics may call Musk's approach erratic, but history has shown that he often plays the long game better than anyone. Maybe this public feud is not a mistake. Maybe it is a strategic play to build influence, control narratives, and shape the next decade of power and innovation. Maybe, just maybe—it is genius. -------------------------- Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please refer to the following link for additional disclosures: Additional Disclosure Note: The author has an affiliation with ERShares and the XOVR ETF. The intent of this article is to provide objective information; however, readers should be aware that the author may have a financial interest in the subject matter discussed. As with all equity investments, investors should carefully evaluate all options with a qualified investment professional before making any investment decision. Private equity investments, such as those held in XOVR, may carry additional risks—including limited liquidity—compared to traditional publicly traded securities. It is important to consider these factors and consult a trained professional when assessing suitability and risk tolerance.
